W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: OWL Documents and new WG

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:31:10 +0100
To: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001401c73ad2$a37a4170$6c7ba8c0@hans>

Evan,

Although I am not an "OWL 1.1 Member Submission author" but an OWL 1.0
implementer (so your future client) I want to respond to your statement:
"....OWL Reference used RDF/XML examples and had enough of an RDF
perspective that it could require major revision....".

If that implies that you want to get rid of RDF/XML then please be aware
that we work every day with that syntax. Changing that to something else
will steepen (or actually prolong) our learning curve. But if it will bring
us *real* progress, then we'll have to invest in learning new tricks.

Regarding the documentation in general I keep wondering why the adagium "the
baker's children always eat old bread" also applies here. Why is it that
your documentation is not yet accessible with the SW technologies that you
preach? Wouldn't it be a selling point if it were? In the beginning I have
spent (or waste, if you want) a lot of time in scraping the RDF, RDFS, and
OWL Recs and bring it together in a format that is readable for myself [1]
(it may not be so readable for you, I guess).

Regards,
Hans

[1] http://www.infowebml.ws/website/rdf-owl-info.htm

____________________
OntoConsult
Hans Teijgeler
ISO 15926 specialist
Netherlands
+31-72-509 2005
www.InfowebML.ws
hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 23:33
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Subject: Re: OWL Documents and new WG (was Re: New draft charter (was Re:
Responses to "Draft of charter for NextWebOnt (Proposed) Working Group"))



I agree with Bijan that we have a very good start on some of the tasks we
need to accomplish to create an OWL 1.1 Recommendation.  In fact, in my
mind, the hardest part of reaching this goal is defining the model theory
and getting the proof of implementation.  Here we have a huge head start.
But this only addresses the implementation side of an OWL
1.1 specification.  

We must also have at least one complete and authoritative reference for
users to appeal to for answers to questions about the language or as the
basis for discussions with implementers (the vast majority of users don't
find language semantics such as in S and AS comprehendible, nor should they
have to).  For OWL 1.0, OWL Reference filled this role well. For me this was
the most important document in the OWL Recommendation.  I propose that we
revise this for OWL 1.1. Bijan: Did you intend the Functional-style Syntax
document to replace the role of Reference in OWL 1.1 or was OWL Reference a
potential Outreach material in your deliverable list?

I think that Guide and OWL Overview are less crucial.
Guide was important when most people were using text editors as authoring
tools for OWL in RDF/XML.  Purpose built OWL editors are now the dominant
tool type for OWL authoring (Protege-OWL, SWOOP, TopBraid, etc), and RDF/XML
will be seen by fewer and fewer users as time goes on.  OWL Overview is
largely redundant with OWL Reference, although it currently is the OWL
document that succinctly describes the OWL sublanguages and it provides nice
overview of OWL for people new to the Semantic Web.

I am not yet sure how major an undertaking revising OWL Reference for 1.1
would be.  The language features are not that different in 1.1, but OWL
Reference used RDF/XML examples and had enough of an RDF perspective that it
could require major revision (if the new mapping changes that perspective).
Any of the OWL 1.1 Member Submission authors care to offer an opinion on
that?  

Almost no standards activity completes within a year, but if we continue to
refine the charter that Bijan has created, particularly the deliverable
section, we should be able to define OWL 1.1 as quickly as is possible.
Stab the stawman now, rather than the standard activity later.

-Evan

Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/632 - Release Date: 16-Jan-07
16:36
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/632 - Release Date: 16-Jan-07
16:36
 
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2007 07:31:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT